Lundy v. State, 28534
Decision Date | 07 November 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 28534,28534 |
Citation | 164 Tex.Crim. 111,296 S.W.2d 775 |
Parties | Gene Donald LUNDY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Clyde W. Woody, William F. Walsh, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the sale of marijuana; the punishment, 10 years.
The prosecuting witness stated that she went to a certain lounge in the City of Houston on the day in question and there purchased from the appellant a large envelope which contained a substance later identified by an expert witness as marijuana.
The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.
The only serious question presented for review by this record is the failure of the court to instruct a verdict of not guilty on the grounds that the prosecuting witness was an accomplice witness and her testimony had not been corroborated.
She testified, without objection, that the had on a prior occasion purchased marijuana from the appellant; that she was a secretary for the Narcotic Division of the Houston Police Department; that she occasionally did undercover work for the officers of that division; and that she went to the lounge on the date in question as the result of a prearrangement made by the officers with money furnished by them.
In Silba v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 135, 275 S.W.2d 108, 109, we said:
We have concluded that the record before us does not meet the test set forth above. It is incumbent upon the accused to develop such facts as would show that the rule applies.
We are not required to pass upon appellant's contention that the prosecuting witness was guilty of violation of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phelps v. State
...is incumbent upon the accused to develop such facts as would show that the [accomplice witness] rule applies." Lundy v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 111, 296 S.W.2d 775, 776 (1956). Yet, the rule announced in Mercer and restated in Bolin effectively reversed this burden in incest cases, requiring t......
-
Moulton v. State, 48337
...to the crime or the criminals would render him accountable under the law as a party to the crime itself.' See also, Lundy v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 296 S.W.2d 775 (1956); Morgan v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 187, 346 S.W.2d 116, 118 The mere fact that State granted transactional immunity to Sa......
-
Alexander v. State
...appellant and Jordan. Appellant contends that the evidence shows Dan Evans to be an accomplice witness as a matter of law. Lundy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 296 S.W.2d 775; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 297 S.W.2d 179; and Aguero v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 298 S.W.2d 822, cited by the State, are deem......
-
Tucker v. State
...at 913. A defendant bears the burden of developing evidence showing the applicability of the accomplice-witness rule. See Lundy v. State, 296 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956); see also Phelps v. State, 532 S.W.3d 437, 446-47 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2017, pet. ref'd). Appellant's position......